Attorneys' Arguments Begin in The Landings Lawsuit

Friday

Sep 6, 2013 at 12:01 AMSep 7, 2013 at 12:09 AM

Lawyers for The Landings and the city of Winter Haven met in court for the first time Friday in what could be a lengthy legal battle over the terminated development once set to take over the city-owned Chain of Lakes recreational complex.

By RYAN E. LITTLETHE LEDGER

WINTER HAVEN | Lawyers for The Landings and the city of Winter Haven met in court for the first time Friday in what could be a lengthy legal battle over the terminated development once set to take over the city-owned Chain of Lakes recreational complex.The city had filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by The Landings financier Taylor Pursell. During the hour-and-a-half-long hearing, the lawyers argued the validity of Pursell's lawsuit. The hearing, which covered only one of four counts in Pursell's suit, was continued to another date, which has not yet been set.The debate came down to what was written and what Pursell claims was said about the sale of the pro­perty. GrayRobinson, P.A., lawyer Mark Miller, representing the city of Winter Haven, argued the written contracts clearly state what was required of The Landings. Under Florida law, these obligations could not be amended by a verbal agreement, he said. Pursell lawyer John Frost of Frost Van den Boom & Smith, P.A., argued a verbal agreement is enforceable because a contract must benefit both parties, but an amendment to the contract benefited only the city.Pursell has claimed that City Attorney John Murphy made a verbal agreement to extend development deadlines as the two signed paperwork to delay construction of The Landings. The city wanted to allow a college baseball tournament to be played at the Chain of Lakes Complex in 2013.Murphy has denied that he made a verbal agreement.Winter Haven commissioners terminated all contracts with Pursell in January when they deemed he had not proceeded with development in a manner approved by the commission.Commissioners specifically cited the failure of Pursell to close on 0.33 of an acre of land and submit a list of covenants, conditions and restrictions by the May 5, 2012, deadline.Miller said at Friday's hearing that a verbal agreement could not be enforced because each contract between the two must be in writing. And, he said, Florida law also requires that land sales contracts be in writing.If there were a verbal agreement, he said, it could not be enforced because it was not approved by the City Commission, as required by law. After the hearing, he said the city has a strong case. "What I see is The Landings is trying to get around the clear language of the contract," he said. But Frost said after the hearing that the city's argument "sounded like a gotcha argument: ‘Hey, we didn't put it in writing, so we got you,'" Frost said. "Our position is that we think there was a binding (verbal) agreement."Frost argued in the hearing that the Murphy verbal agreement which Pursell claims was made is binding because Florida law requires a contract to have benefits for all parties."What was the consideration to The Landings to enter into that? There wasn't any," Frost said, referring to the agreement that delayed the development by a year but did not delay the deadlines that corresponded with the next phase. When Pursell did not meet those next-phase deadlines, the city terminated the contract.The suit is being heard in Circuit Judge Mark Hofstad's courtroom.Pursell is expected to file a second lawsuit that will allege city officials committed fraud in their dealings with him. He has said he would seek $20 million in damages.That lawsuit can't be filed yet, however. Florida law requires six months' notice for tort cases filed against a city. Pursell gave that notice in June.

[ Ryan Little can be reached at ryan.little@theledger.com or 863-401-6962. Follow him on Twitter @LedgerRyan. ]